Shocking, isn’t it? Here’s how this earth-shattering story went down. Imagine your best friends have just told you that they are expecting a child but don’t want the news to spread because they were planning to tell their families in person. Then imagine that your Twitter account immediately shared any information you had learned, thus ruining everything. What I’m trying to say is, Game have just told everyone who was watching: “EA presentation was great. Had mentions of a new Medal of Honour and Need for Speed 13! EA have an exciting year ahead.” Only problem is, the presentation was confidential and the tweet is now gone. I guess if we return to the pregnant couple, their families wouldn’t care all that much in this case because they already have 714 children, following each birth with immediate conception.

Indeed, once you have completed a piece of art to your satisfaction, how can you break apart what you brought to completion so perfectly in your last oeuvre? I cannot see how this would work in anything but the most jaded and avaricious of minds.

Imagine if the Mona Lisa were to make a reprise, but with a wider range of emotions and set in a war-torn Normandy? Or if Romeo and Juliet were not in fact dead, but instead found a contrived reason for making a road trip across America, with Dane Cook as the also-resurrected Mercutio, whose catchphrase “a plague o’ both your houses!” is accompanied by recorded audience laughter. Or the Hay Wain, which is now in space?

Oh, but alas for the protagonist of Need for Speed, whose Sisyphean task will never be complete and whose addiction to velocity may never yet be sated. To play this game, Electronic Arts seem to conclude, must truly be to live in Hades and to suffer eternally.

Why do these people think spoiling it is fine? I mean, I was really looking forward to being surprised and excited when they officially announced the 13th installment of a yearly-released profitable franchise, and this guy’s just taken that away from me.

So basically you want EA to turn Battlefield into a yearly franchise like Call of Duty, but be slightly less blatant about it by alternating between two names?

I’m using hyperbole here, for the record, as I realize that Medal of Honor and Battlefield have different styles of multiplayer, but I can’t help but think they might begin to converge after a while if EA actually did this.

Actually, to be quite frank, I don’t really mind yearly franchises particularly. I just think it’s a bit silly for people to complain about Call of Duty getting yearly installments on the same engine while EA is seemingly planning to do the same thing with DICE’s Frostbite 2. CONSISTENCY, PEOPLE!

tl;dr: I whine a bit about attitudes that annoy me. Sorry, that rant might not even apply to you, TormDK.

I wouldn’t mind a bi-yearly Battlefield game no. They could even do it like this : Battlefield 3 -> New MoH -> Battlefield 2143 -> MoH variant -> Battlefield – Bad Company 3 -> Battlefield 4 -> MoH etc.

In essence, as long as each games style is preserved, then I do not see myself as feeling “full” on that shooter experience. The titles evolve, of course, but they still preserve some close ties with their “parent”.

That way the Medal of Honour franchise could be moved closer to Call of Duty in terms of style and play, where Battlefield could be tweaked some, and remain a mostly team based game. (Which we could argue that it isn’t currently – I as an owner of all battlefield games for the PC at least feel that they have gone a bit too far in trying to mimic Call of Duty.)

Alternatively, if they do wait for the entire nine-month human gestation period, they would need to have an average of approximately thirteen children per birth for the entirety of a fairly generous 40-year span of female fertility. Otherwise, the wife would need to give birth every 20 days or so, and would still have approximately thirteen fetuses in various states of development in her womb at any one time.

If we ignore the statement that the family is a couple, then the feat becomes a slightly less impossible. Assuming that the family is polygynous (i.e. the male partner has multiple wives), the husband can cycle through wives, getting one pregnant every twenty days or so. The husband would need at least thirteen wives to make this possible, all of whom must be fertile for at least 40 years.

EA is NOT Pro SOPA. EA have made no comment, except a comment along the lines of they aren’t making any comment. They are NOT actively supporting the Bill, but haven’t specifically stated if they are opposed to it.